So a private company that reserves the right to cancel it's liability insurance on you at any time - and clearly states this on the contract that you sign to - does so, as clearly stated in the contract, because you're a demonstrated liability risk, and you're enraged because of this?

In Germany, if you commit an offence on your bicycle, it counts towards your points on your drivers license. Running red lights, illegal turns weaving through traffic are all an offence if you're caught.

If you're ever found bicycling drunk, they will immediately take away your driving license. The Germans figure that if you're not responsible enough to bicycle properly, you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

The seat belt ticket I can understand but if the ticket has nothing to do with a motor vehicle it should not affect your license in anyway.I got to wonder if they used it as a convenient excuse to drop him and avoid giving him a discount.

So a private company that reserves the right to cancel it's liability insurance on you at any time - and clearly states this on the contract that you sign to - does so, as clearly stated in the contract, because you're a demonstrated liability risk, and you're enraged because of this?

It would be different if you weren't required to have insurance. Also, enraged? Really dude? Get a grip.

So a private company that reserves the right to cancel it's liability insurance on you at any time - and clearly states this on the contract that you sign to - does so, as clearly stated in the contract, because you're a demonstrated liability risk, and you're enraged because of this?

I don't think anyone is saying the company has no right to drop the guy. People are just boggled at the reason.

I'll never understand insurance companies when they do things like this. They are turning away perfectly good income. 5 years w/ no claims.... that's almost pure profit for a company and they are throwing that away. (minus whatever the overhead per customer is.)

FenixStorm1:If you're ever found bicycling drunk, they will immediately take away your driving license. The Germans figure that if you're not responsible enough to bicycle properly, you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

They tried to do that in France, but it was overturned in France, because it created a difference of treatment between people with and without a driver's license.

Piestar:It would be different if you weren't required to have insurance

How would it be different, exactly? Would you mind explaining this to me, since I'm having a little trouble with the core concept of being mad/upset/critical at a company which you pay to put tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line to cover you in the event of stupidity and/or accident on your part terminating your coverage for being a demonstrable liability risk on their part.

So, you mean if Geico the Gecko cancels my plan, I can't go over to Erin Esurance, or Fran with Progressive and get a claim with them? I'm legally MANDATED to use that particular insurance company?

I think FARK actually found a news source that is more shallow and pedantic than the Consumerist. This is less of a news story than Barack Obama ordering Dijon mustard.

BronyMedic:So a private company that reserves the right to cancel it's liability insurance on you at any time

That's really the problem.

Insurance is a racket run by assholes to make the most money. There's not enough regulation of the market to prevent it from being run much different that any other racket.

What they have to do is, if insurance is mandatory, make insuring mandatory as well. Also make the terms unambiguous. The government can't arbitrarily cancel your voting rights. They can revoke them if you take certain actions, though.

Allowing the insurance companies to remain private and yet requiring insurance coverage is just a way to screw people over.

grimlock1972:The seat belt ticket I can understand but if the ticket has nothing to do with a motor vehicle it should not affect your license in anyway.I got to wonder if they used it as a convenient excuse to drop him and avoid giving him a discount.

It didn't affect his license. Or, at least, there's no mention of that in the article.

doglover:BronyMedic: So a private company that reserves the right to cancel it's liability insurance on you at any time

That's really the problem.

Insurance is a racket run by assholes to make the most money. There's not enough regulation of the market to prevent it from being run much different that any other racket.

What they have to do is, if insurance is mandatory, make insuring mandatory as well. Also make the terms unambiguous. The government can't arbitrarily cancel your voting rights. They can revoke them if you take certain actions, though.

Allowing the insurance companies to remain private and yet requiring insurance coverage is just a way to screw people over.

That's the thing, in the United States, at least, that liability insurance is NOT mandatory if you can demonstrate financial responsibility - i.e. you have enough assets and money in the bank to cover any accident for the state minimum. You can still self-insure.

Very few people are uninsurable, and it's just a matter of how much you're actually willing to pay for it. Even someone with 8 DUIs can get coverage. But, and here's the important thing, no company should be forced - for a certain price range - to cover someone who's going to be a disproportionate amount of risk to them, especially when they have objective measures to demonstrate it. This is not Health Insurance. No one is going to die because you don't have minimum liability coverage cheap.

BronyMedic:Piestar: It would be different if you weren't required to have insurance

How would it be different, exactly? Would you mind explaining this to me, since I'm having a little trouble with the core concept of being mad/upset/critical at a company which you pay to put tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line to cover you in the event of stupidity and/or accident on your part terminating your coverage for being a demonstrable liability risk on their part.

So, you mean if Geico the Gecko cancels my plan, I can't go over to Erin Esurance, or Fran with Progressive and get a claim with them? I'm legally MANDATED to use that particular insurance company?

I think FARK actually found a news source that is more shallow and pedantic than the Consumerist. This is less of a news story than Barack Obama ordering Dijon mustard.

Piestar: Also, enraged? Really dude? Get a grip.

[www.thegatewaypundit.com image 647x564]

Amazing, that picture is exactly how I imagine you. Such rage!

I would explain the difference between mandatory expenses and optional expenses with you, as well as the fact that insurance companies share that info, and what that means to the consumer, but frankly you impress me as a troll rather then a rational human being, and though I usually enjoy antagonizing your sort, you in particular bore me.

I dont agree with it and hate insurance companies. If you work for one, I hope you throw-up everytime you cash your paycheck.

From the companies perspective, they are acting on what the actions of the MAN. Their position will be that he does not value his own safety enough to wear a helmet when engaging in risky behaviour, so he is likely to always engage in risky behaviour.

Piestar:Amazing, that picture is exactly how I imagine you. Such rage!

Rage? Really? Because I call you out over something that's blatantly stupid and completely wrong, I'm raging? I'm actually quite calm right now, enjoying a nice cup of iced tea, and doing To Honor One's Elders. How I've never done this in 5 years of playing this game, I have no idea.

But if you have to imagine me as mad, more power to you. Seems kinda dumb, but oh well.

Piestar:I would explain the difference between mandatory expenses and optional expenses with you, as well as the fact that insurance companies share that info, and what that means to the consumer, but frankly you impress me as a troll rather then a rational human being, and though I usually enjoy antagonizing your sort, you in particular bore me.

I'm hardly trolling you in the least - if I were trolling you, I'd be much more mocking and sarcastic than I am now. I'd love for you to explain to me the great social injustice this private corporation committed by doing exactly what it outlined in the contract this man willingly signed - namely that it reserved the right to terminate liability coverage if the person was demonstrated to be a criminal or liability risk. The simple fact of the world is that if you do stupid stuff - like break the law and not wear a helmet - which not only signifies that you're willing to disregard basic safety measures which put you at a higher loss risk for that insurance company, but willing to do things which would cause greater cost to that company from your own injuries - you can either expect to A) Pay more on your insurance, or B) Have the policy terminated and have to look elsewhere for insurance at a costlier rate than if you weren't such a risk.

Why should a private company which provides a service that can also be provided by thousands of other private companies, and clearly lays out it's contract terms before you enter into them in the first place be forced to carry a blatant risk that company has deemed unacceptable to take on?

Piestar:BronyMedic: Piestar: It would be different if you weren't required to have insurance

How would it be different, exactly? Would you mind explaining this to me, since I'm having a little trouble with the core concept of being mad/upset/critical at a company which you pay to put tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line to cover you in the event of stupidity and/or accident on your part terminating your coverage for being a demonstrable liability risk on their part.

So, you mean if Geico the Gecko cancels my plan, I can't go over to Erin Esurance, or Fran with Progressive and get a claim with them? I'm legally MANDATED to use that particular insurance company?

I think FARK actually found a news source that is more shallow and pedantic than the Consumerist. This is less of a news story than Barack Obama ordering Dijon mustard.

Piestar: Also, enraged? Really dude? Get a grip.

[www.thegatewaypundit.com image 647x564]

Amazing, that picture is exactly how I imagine you. Such rage!

...

Ciao raging baby...

Well, I haven't seen an "I'm rubber, you're glue" comment on fark in a while. Congrats, I guess.

TheBlackFlag:I dont agree with it and hate insurance companies. If you work for one, I hope you throw-up everytime you cash your paycheck.

From the companies perspective, they are acting on what the actions of the MAN. Their position will be that he does not value his own safety enough to wear a helmet when engaging in risky behaviour, so he is likely to always engage in risky behaviour.

That is how insurance companies work. I know from experience.

If you work for one, you work for the devil.

I work for an insurance company. We give away money all the time. For free. No questions asked. Sometimes we even change baby diapers when our customers are otherwise occupied. I don't understand all the hate for insurance companies. We don't take your money to dislike us. That just doesn't make sense.

I find it far more disturbing that you can be ticketed for not wearing a helmet whilst skateboarding or cycling. Seriously, WTF?!? Personal responsibility, anyone? And people call the UK a "Nanny State".

OK, tickets for not wearing a helmet while skateboarding I understand. Having this linked in some mysterious way to motor vehicles I don't get. Especially since if he falls and knocks his brains out, his motor vehicle insurance is NOT going to pay for it.

Then again, I don't understand a lot of things these days. Like how credit card companies basically managed to get decades old caps on interest rates voided.

I haven't figured out why kids toys can be taken off the market and considered dangerous for 100 reasons, yet skate boards flourish. I figure the old Vac-U-Form burned some fingers but didn't break bones, scramble brains, smash in faces and cause deep tissue injuries like skate boards can.

I shouldn't be surprised because folks still expect schools to basically rear their kids while trying to educate them and do so under some of the most stringent restrictions in history.

Though I get an inkling as our hero of the article points out that he's gonna go back to the same spot and skate board -- with or without a helmet.

Rik01:Like how credit card companies basically managed to get decades old caps on interest rates voided.

This i recently understood thanks to cracked.com:

According to a little-known 1978 Supreme Court ruling, banks could use the rates of the states where they were headquartered, even if they were nationwide companies lending money all over the country. Boom! Loophole!

DrPainMD:grimlock1972: The seat belt ticket I can understand but if the ticket has nothing to do with a motor vehicle it should not affect your license in anyway.I got to wonder if they used it as a convenient excuse to drop him and avoid giving him a discount.

It didn't affect his license. Or, at least, there's no mention of that in the article.

FTA:A representative with TD Insurance Meloche Monnex told Harland it was the skateboarding that had tipped his case over the edge."Any type of violation that goes against the Motor Vehicle Act does take points off of your licence and thus counts against your insurance rating," Harland was told.

TheBlackFlag:I dont agree with it and hate insurance companies. If you work for one, I hope you throw-up everytime you cash your paycheck.

From the companies perspective, they are acting on what the actions of the MAN. Their position will be that he does not value his own safety enough to wear a helmet when engaging in risky behaviour, so he is likely to always engage in risky behaviour.

It's more than that. They can demonstrate that there is a higher probability that you will be in an accident from engaging in other risky behaviors. There are all kinds of things that are statistically linked to higher accident rates, from being childless over the age of 40 to having a low credit score. They aren't passing judgement, they're just analyzing statistics and pricing accordingly. You'd do the same thing if you owned an insurance company.

RINO:DrPainMD: grimlock1972: The seat belt ticket I can understand but if the ticket has nothing to do with a motor vehicle it should not affect your license in anyway.I got to wonder if they used it as a convenient excuse to drop him and avoid giving him a discount.

It didn't affect his license. Or, at least, there's no mention of that in the article.

FTA:A representative with TD Insurance Meloche Monnex told Harland it was the skateboarding that had tipped his case over the edge."Any type of violation that goes against the Motor Vehicle Act does take points off of your licence and thus counts against your insurance rating," Harland was told.

So a private company that reserves the right to cancel it's liability insurance on you at any time - and clearly states this on the contract that you sign to - does so, as clearly stated in the contract, because you're a demonstrated liability risk, and you're enraged because of this?

The story is vague, but it sounds like the skateboarding tickets are actually taking points off the guys drivers license. Can any Canuck Farkers confirm this?If that's true, then this guy got three tickets in just a few years. Sure it's stupid that none of them are moving violations in a car, but hey, you can't expect these things to make sense.

FenixStorm1:In Germany, if you commit an offence on your bicycle, it counts towards your points on your drivers license. Running red lights, illegal turns weaving through traffic are all an offence if you're caught.

If you're ever found bicycling drunk, they will immediately take away your driving license. The Germans figure that if you're not responsible enough to bicycle properly, you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

Helmet laws should only be enforceable for people under 18. My ex has been riding a bike his whole life, he's never had a drivers license, nor a major bicycle accident which would have been affected in a positive way by the wearing of a helmet. He once got a ticket for riding without a helmet. The douchebag bicycle cop thought he'd put a scare into my ex by telling him his DL would be suspended if he didn't pay the fine. Ex is like, well, that might matter to me if I had a license to begin with.

Helmet laws differ by province. In Alberta, it only applies to those inder 18, while in our home province of NB, it's mandatory for everybody, and it seems it must be so in NS too.

dopekitty74:FenixStorm1: In Germany, if you commit an offence on your bicycle, it counts towards your points on your drivers license. Running red lights, illegal turns weaving through traffic are all an offence if you're caught.

If you're ever found bicycling drunk, they will immediately take away your driving license. The Germans figure that if you're not responsible enough to bicycle properly, you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

Helmet laws should only be enforceable for people under 18. My ex has been riding a bike his whole life, he's never had a drivers license, nor a major bicycle accident which would have been affected in a positive way by the wearing of a helmet. He once got a ticket for riding without a helmet. The douchebag bicycle cop thought he'd put a scare into my ex by telling him his DL would be suspended if he didn't pay the fine. Ex is like, well, that might matter to me if I had a license to begin with.

Helmet laws differ by province. In Alberta, it only applies to those inder 18, while in our home province of NB, it's mandatory for everybody, and it seems it must be so in NS too.

/smh//helmets suck

I'll agree with you on two conditions:

A) You legislate that anyone who suffers a catastrophic head injury from not wearing a helmet is a mandated organ donor, with no recourse or refusal options from family or significant others.B) Anyone not wearing a helmet, and suffers a catastrophic head injury forfeits their ability to utilize federal and state trauma funding, as well as the state medicaid programs to assist in the payment of their medical treatment and rehabilitation.

I was all ready to defend the insurance company on the grounds that the guy is reckless and does not respect the law, but their stated logic.... it makes my head hurt. If it does not effect your driving record, then it effects your insurance record. they then go on to state that if it DOES effect your driving record, it also effects your insurance record. sounds fair... if you drunk enough.

/ as does the logic of a skateboard violation in a skate park being a motor violation.

FenixStorm1:In Germany, if you commit an offence on your bicycle, it counts towards your points on your drivers license. Running red lights, illegal turns weaving through traffic are all an offence if you're caught.

BronyMedic:dopekitty74: FenixStorm1: In Germany, if you commit an offence on your bicycle, it counts towards your points on your drivers license. Running red lights, illegal turns weaving through traffic are all an offence if you're caught.

If you're ever found bicycling drunk, they will immediately take away your driving license. The Germans figure that if you're not responsible enough to bicycle properly, you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.

Helmet laws should only be enforceable for people under 18. My ex has been riding a bike his whole life, he's never had a drivers license, nor a major bicycle accident which would have been affected in a positive way by the wearing of a helmet. He once got a ticket for riding without a helmet. The douchebag bicycle cop thought he'd put a scare into my ex by telling him his DL would be suspended if he didn't pay the fine. Ex is like, well, that might matter to me if I had a license to begin with.

Helmet laws differ by province. In Alberta, it only applies to those inder 18, while in our home province of NB, it's mandatory for everybody, and it seems it must be so in NS too.

/smh//helmets suck

I'll agree with you on two conditions:

A) You legislate that anyone who suffers a catastrophic head injury from not wearing a helmet is a mandated organ donor, with no recourse or refusal options from family or significant others.B) Anyone not wearing a helmet, and suffers a catastrophic head injury forfeits their ability to utilize federal and state trauma funding, as well as the state medicaid programs to assist in the payment of their medical treatment and rehabilitation.

I've got no problem with option A at all. I'm a registered organ donor myself.

As far as the second half goes, it is CANADA. EVERYBODY HAS MEDICAL COVERAGE. So, no, I can't agree that someone should be denied what everybody else gets because they don't wear a bicycle helmet when the law varies from province to province.